New York Times columnist Bret Stephens says that Jewish Voice for Peace is as anti-Semitic as white nationalists like Richard Spencer because it undermines “Israel’s right to exist.” This is a clever feat of propaganda for Israel: Stephens is saying that Israel has a right to discriminate against Palestinians. People need to call it out as racist claptrap.
Search Results for:
New York Times
Anyone in America who wants hard truths about Israel/Palestine today must read Haaretz instead of the U.S. press. The New York Times acknowledged the Israeli newspaper’s supremacy with the ultimate compliment: it ran a hatchet job on the journal.
The New York Times headline is, “Palestinian Kills 3 Israelis, Shattering Tranquillity at West Bank Crossing.” The definition of “tranquillity” employed by the Times is one-sided; it can only apply to the Israeli point of view, inside a bubble, oblivious to Palestinian suffering.
Bari Weiss, an opinion editor at the New York Times and longtime pro-Israel advocate, smears Linda Sarsour as a purveyor of “hate” because she is anti-Zionist. Weiss is in a rich tradition of pro-Zionist advocacy at America’s leading newspaper, but Sarsour’s prominence is endangering that entitlement.
Jodi Rudoren promoted the Israeli Zionist narrative as bureau chief for the New York Times in Jerusalem. Now she’s the newspaper’s guide in Israel to wealthy visitors for three days during a first-class round the world tour in a private jet next year, 26 days and 9 countries for $135,000.
Hadassah panel on tension between Zionism and feminism shows that Zionism is now a dirty word on the left, and with good reason, as an all-Zionist panel led by a NYT editor indulges orientalist critiques of occupied Palestinian culture.
Haaretz newspaper in Israel gets death threats for its unblinking reports on Palestinian conditions, but the New York Times, once again moving mountains to support Israel, describes it as juvenile, antagonistic and contrarian, in a column by Shmuel Rosner.
Amith Gupta writes a double standard was at play when the New York Times decided to amend an op-ed written by imprisoned Palestinian Marwan Barghouti by adding in his conviction when the crimes and biases of other contributors are defended or ignored
The coverage of the Palestinian issue in the New York Times is getting better, as reflected by the Marwan Barghouti op-ed calling Israel a “moral failure,” and new Jerusalem bureau chief Ian Fisher’s straightforward reports. Yes the Times hired neocon crank Bret Stephens; but the paper of record is in play.
The New York Times has run two pieces in the last couple of days arguing that religion has nothing to do with the real world. Passover is offered as a source of mystery, but not as a window on what is happening in Israel and Palestine.
The New York Times last ran an opinion piece in favor of Boycotting Israel more than three years ago. Since then it’s run seven against the international campaign.
Israel is “confronted with a miserable choice,” the New York Times says– meaning democracy for its Palestinian subjects.
The New York Times dares to tell readers that more than half US military aid in the world goes to a country that demolishes Palestinian homes and perfects targeted killings.
In extensive coverage of the UN Security Council resolution against settlements, the New York Times has quoted only four Palestinians. One article was headline that the focus is now “back on Palestinians,” but quoted numerous Americans and Israeli voices, but only one Palestinian.
A landmark piece in the New York Times: Omri Boehm of the New School says Trump era will force liberal Zionists to choose Zionism or liberalism, because Zionism is “a political agenda rooted in the denial of liberal politics” and the privileging of one ethnic group over another.
Less than four months after he went to Jerusalem for the New York Times, Peter Baker is going back to the White House. He says it’s the “Trump effect.” The big story is in D.C.
Today the New York Times runs an insultingly stupid bit of pro-Israel propaganda by Jodi Rudoren saying that Israel and the US have “shared values,” based on foundational documents, without stating that the US was founded with white supremacist beliefs and Israel persists in such beliefs to this day.
‘New York Times’ asserts that Julian Assange got Wikileaks documents from Russian spies, but offers no hard evidence; and suggests that Hillary Clinton had it out for Assange because the State Dep’t was humiliated, but never follows through on Clinton’s agenda.
The New York Times has pointedly refused to cover an important and explosive news story, the rise of Jewish anti-Zionism. Its news columns characterize Palestinian solidarity activists as anti-Semites and it ignores leading voices, from Hasia Diner to Gideon Levy to Max Blumenthal, who are putting Zionism behind them.
A gushing interview of Netanyahu in the New York Times repairs a relationship hurt 3 years ago by the Times publishing gossip about his wife; but it is a serious dereliction in its refusal to raise Israeli officials’ charges that the government is fascistic.
Israeli Jewish views from right to far right are given, in a NY Times account of the Israeli-Turkish deal ending the impasse over Israel’s killing of 10 men on the Turkish aid boat the “Mavi Marmara” in 2010. The article justifies the Israeli blockade on Gaza and parrots an Israeli version of the attack, leaving out human rights’ groups’ reports that it was brutal and included summary executions.
The New York Times on Thursday described Israel’s military occupation in dismissive quotations (i.e “occupation”) in a story concerning Israelis and Palestinians and the Democratic National Convention. In another breathtaking example of digital illiteracy and editorial discombobulation, the Times removed the insensitive quotation marks a few hours afterwards with no editorial explanation. Maybe it was all some kind of innocent misunderstanding. But there’s plenty of reason not to believe that.
A NYT article by Ronen Bergman says Israel’s top military leaders regard Benjamin Netanyahu as a religious, ideological ambitious man who seeks “belligerent” solutions to problems. Then why is Hillary Clinton saying she wants to invite this “dangerous” man to the White House in her first month as president?
“Extremist and dangerous elements have taken over Israel and also the Likud Party and have shaken the house and are threatening to hurt the inhabitants,” Defense Minister Ya’alon says in resigning. The shocking statement makes headlines around the world, but the New York Times treats the story like the CT governor’s race, and buries the “extremism” quote.
During Thursday’s Democratic debate Bernie Sanders criticized the Israeli war in Gaza as disproportionate. Hillary Clinton responded with the standard excuse employed by Israel that the problem was that Hamas hides among civilians. Her claims about Gaza flatly contradict what human rights organizations have found, but so far the New York Times hasn’t reported on this.